"thunder" wrote in message

..... it's called active or participatory democracy, as opposed to our
passive model. For an example, look south towards Venezuela. Remember
the recall election Chavez survived? That is an example of an active
democracy.

Any government subject to recall on the basis of popularity polls is not
stable by anyone's definition. Referring to our system as "passive
democracy" is a red herring indeed. We have, by intent and design, a
constitutional republic. All representatives of the people are elected
within their respective states for stipulated periods of time, not for as
long as they are popular, and we have no officials, none at all, that are
elected on a national basis. Elected officials are sent the seat of
government to conduct the peoples' business. They are expected to exercise
their best judgement on the issues facing the country, and if their
judgement is not deemed acceptable by the majority in their state, they will
not be elected again. They are *not* supposed to poll their constituencies
on every question that arises. Pure democracy was particularly avoided by
the founders specifically so that one-issue rages of public opinion could
not disrupt or overthrow the government.


Also, if you think the press can lead the population around by the nose,
you really don't have much faith in democracy, do you?

The press can, and sometime does, lead the population around when they
choose, and I have damn little faith at all in pure democracy. I've
observed it and partaken of it directly my whole life, in Town Meetings all
over New England. The simple, sad, inescapable fact is that except for
very small towns, democracy doesn't work well or efficiently. Gives a lot
of people lots of feel-good warm-fuzzies, but is utterly wasteful and
innefficient as a management system if you want to get anything done.